unmistakably records 19 uinals, a number which had no existence in the Maya system of numeration, since 19 uinals are always recorded as 1 tun and 1 uinal.[[237]] Therefore the coefficient in C1 is incorrect on its face, a fact we have been able to determine before proceeding with the calculation indicated. If not 19, what then was the coefficient the ancient scribe should have engraved in its place? Fortunately the rest of this text is unusually clear, the Initial-series number 9.15.6.?.1 appearing in B1-D1, and the terminal date which it reaches, 7 Imix 19 Zip, appearing in C2 D2. Compare C2 with figure [16], a, b, and D2 with figure [19], d. We know to begin with that the uinal coefficient must be one of the eighteen numerals 0 to 17, inclusive. Trying 0 first, the number will be 9.15.6.0.1, which the student will find leads to the date 7 Imix 4 Chen. Our first trial, therefore, has proved unsuccessful, since the date recorded is 7 Imix 19 Zip. The day parts agree, but the month parts are not the same. This month part 4 Chen is useful, however, for one thing, it shows us how far distant we are from the month part 19 Zip, which is recorded. It appears from Table [XV] that in counting forward from position 4 Chen just 260 days are required to reach position 19 Zip. Consequently, our first trial number 9.15.6.0.1 falls short of the number necessary by just 260 days. But 260 days are equal to 13 uinals; therefore we must increase 9.15.6.0.1 by 13 uinals. This gives us the number 9.15.6.13.1. Reducing this to units of the first order and solving for the terminal date, the date reached will be 7 Imix 19 Zip, which agrees with the date recorded, in C2 D2. We may conclude, therefore, that the uinal coefficient in C1 should have been 13, instead of 19 as recorded.

Another error of the same kind—that is, one which may be detected by inspection—is shown in figure [84], B. Passing over glyphs 1, 2, and 3, we reach in glyph 4 the date 5 Kan 13 Uo. Compare the upper half of 4 with figure [16], f, and the lower half with figure [19], b, c. The coefficient of the month sign is very clearly 13, which represents an impossible condition when used to indicate the position of a day whose name is Kan; for, according to Table [VII], the only positions which the day Kan can ever occupy in any division of the year are 2, 7, 12, and 17. Hence, it is evident that we have detected an error in this text before proceeding with the calculations indicated. Let us endeavor to ascertain the coefficient which should have been used with the month sign in glyph 4 instead of the 13 actually recorded. These glyphs present seemingly a regular Secondary Series, the starting point being given in 1 and 2, the number in 3, and the terminal date in 4. Counting this number 3.4 forward from the starting point, 6 Ahau 13 Kayab, the terminal date reached will be 5 Kan 12 Uo. Comparing this with the terminal date actually recorded, we find that the two agree except for the month coefficient. But since the date recorded represents an impossible condition, as we

have shown, we are justified in assuming that the month coefficient which should have been used in glyph 4 was 12, instead of 13. In other words, the craftsman to whom the sculpturing of this inscription was intrusted engraved here 3 dots instead of 2 dots, and 1 ornamental crescent, which, together with the 2 bars present, would have given the month coefficient determined by calculation, 12. An error of this kind might occur very easily and indeed in many cases may be apparent rather than real, being due to weathering rather than to a mistake in the original text.

Some errors in the inscriptions, however, can not be detected by inspection, and develop only after the calculations indicated have been performed, and the results are found to disagree with the glyphs recorded. Errors of this kind constitute the second class mentioned above. A case in point is the Initial Series on the west side of Stela E at Quirigua, figured in plate [24], A. In this text the Initial-series number recorded in A4-A6 is very clearly 9.14.12.4.17, and the terminal date in B6-B8b is equally clearly 12 Caban 5 Kayab. Now, if this number 9.14.12.4.17 is reduced to units of the first order and is counted forward from the same starting point as practically all other Initial Series, the terminal date reached will be 3 Caban 10 Kayab, not 12 Caban 5 Kayab, as recorded. Moreover, if the same number is counted forward from the date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, which may have been another starting point for Initial Series, as we have seen, the terminal date reached will be 3 Caban 10 Zip, not 12 Caban 5 Kayab, as recorded. The inference is obvious, therefore, that there is some error in this text, since the number recorded can not be made to reach the date recorded. An error of this kind is difficult to detect, because there is no indication in the text as to which glyph is the one at fault. The first assumption the writer makes in such cases is that the date is correct and that the error is in one of the period-glyph coefficients. Referring to Goodman's Table, it will be found that the date 12 Caban 5 Kayab occurred at the following positions in Cycle 9 of the Long Count:

9. 1. 9.11.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9. 4. 2. 6.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9. 6.15. 1.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9. 9. 7.14.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9.12. 0. 9.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9.14.13. 4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9.17. 5.17.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9.19.18.12.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab

An examination of these values will show that the sixth in the list, 9.14.13.4.17, is very close to the number recorded in our text, 9.14.12.4.17. Indeed, the only difference between the two is that the former has 13 tuns while the latter has only 12. The similarity between these two numbers is otherwise so close and the error in this

event would be so slight—the record of 2 dots and 1 ornamental crescent instead of 3 dots—that the conclusion is almost inevitable that the error here is in the tun coefficient, 12 having been recorded instead of 13. In this particular case the Secondary Series and the Period-ending date, which follow the Initial-series number 9.14.12.4.17, prove that the above reading of 13 tuns for the 12 actually recorded is the one correction needed to rectify the error in this text.

Another example indicating an error which can not be detected by inspection is shown in figure [84], C. In glyphs 1 and 2 appears the date 8 Eznab 16 Uo (compare glyph 1 with fig. [16], c', and glyph 2 with fig. [19], b, c). In glyph 3 follows a number consisting of 17 kins and 4 uinals (4.17). Finally, in glyphs 4 and 5 is recorded the date 2 Men 13 Yaxkin (compare glyph 4 with fig. [16], y, and glyph 5 with fig. [19], k, l). This has every appearance of being a Secondary Series, of which 8 Eznab 16 Uo is the starting point, 4.17, the number to be counted, and 2 Men 13 Yaxkin the terminal date. Reducing 4.17 to units of the first order and counting it forward from the starting point indicated, the terminal date reached will be 1 Men 13 Yaxkin. This differs from the terminal date recorded in glyphs 4 and 5 in having a day coefficient of 1 instead of 2. Since this involves but a very slight change in the original text, we are probably justified in assuming; that the day coefficient in glyph 4 should have been 1 instead of 2 as recorded.

One more example will suffice to show the kind of errors usually encountered in the inscriptions. In plate [26] is figured the Initial Series from Stela N at Copan. The introducing glyph appears in A1 and is followed by the Initial-series number 9.16.10.0.0 in A2-A6, all the coefficients of which are unusually clear. Reducing this to units of the first order and solving for the terminal date, the date reached will be 1 Ahau 3 Zip. This agrees with the terminal date recorded in A7-A15 except for the month coefficient, which is 8 in the text instead of 3, as determined by calculation. Assuming that the date recorded is correct and that the error is in the coefficient of the period glyphs the next step is to find the positions in Cycle 9 at which the date 1 Ahau 8 Zip occurred. Referring to Goodman's Tables, these will be found to be:

9. 0. 8.11.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9. 3. 1. 6.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9. 5.14. 1.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9. 8. 6.14.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9.10.19. 9.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9.13.12. 4.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9.16. 4.17.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9.18.17.12.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip